Abstract
The interconnected relationship between international human
rights law and international criminal law has long been an issue of
scholarship. This article examines the last decade of practice at the
International Criminal Court focusing on instances where the Court
has either invoked a human rights interpretation of governing
documents or rejected such an approach. The article concludes that
the application of human rights is unclear and is largely driven by
pragmatism rather than principle. Greater clarity, through a more
consistent and transparent theory of international criminal law
interpretation, is needed. In the meantime, the judges should remain
reluctant from too easily conflating the two fields of law because to
do so, at the expense of an accused, can undermine the very
principles upon which fair and legitimate criminal proceedings
operate.
rights law and international criminal law has long been an issue of
scholarship. This article examines the last decade of practice at the
International Criminal Court focusing on instances where the Court
has either invoked a human rights interpretation of governing
documents or rejected such an approach. The article concludes that
the application of human rights is unclear and is largely driven by
pragmatism rather than principle. Greater clarity, through a more
consistent and transparent theory of international criminal law
interpretation, is needed. In the meantime, the judges should remain
reluctant from too easily conflating the two fields of law because to
do so, at the expense of an accused, can undermine the very
principles upon which fair and legitimate criminal proceedings
operate.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 697-736 |
| Number of pages | 40 |
| Journal | Fordham international law journal |
| Volume | 41 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Publication status | Published - 2018 |
Keywords
- International Criminal Court
- human rights
- judicial interpretation
